Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.08.2019 as rendered by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonepat whereby respondent no. 2 Rahisu had been acquitted of the charges as levelled against him under Sections 365, 376, 506, 201 IPC, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the prosecution of respondent no.2 in the instant case, are that on 26.11.2016, respondent no.2 went to the house of the prosecutrix and asked her to give him Rs.1000/- or Rs.1500/- for the repair of his vehicle which had broken down near the pond of the village. She arranged for the said amount and went to the pond to hand over the same to respondent no.2 but he forcibly pulled her inside the car and put some cloth on her mouth and she fell 1 of 9 unconscious. On regaining the consciousness, she found herself at an unknown place and respondent no.2 raped her while threatening that if she disclosed this incident to anyone, he would kill her as well as her family members. On the next day, respondent no.2, along with his relatives Sattar and Irshad, brought her to the Police Station Sadar, Sonepat and while threatening her, he asked her to make a statement before the police regarding her having voluntarily gone with him. She signed some documents at the said Police Station and then, she was taken to Police Station Kundli and her husband and brother, who had come there, took her to Village Jatwara, Sonepat.

12. Coming to the merits of the present appeal, it is pertinent to mention here that as highlighted in para no.35 of the impugned judgment, the stand as taken by the prosecutrix while making statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and at the time of deposing in the Court as PW-1 has not been consistent on various material particulars as in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, she has stated that she was alone in her house when respondent no. 2 came to her house asking for the amount of Rs.1000/- or Rs.1500/- for the repair of his car and during her cross-examination as PW-1, she has stated that her daughter, aged 14 years, was also present in the house at that time but however, the daughter of the prosecutrix has not been examined by the prosecution as its witness whereas she could have been the best person to corroborate the version of the prosecutrix regarding the visit of respondent no. 2 to their house. Further, during her examination-in-chief as 6 of 9 PW-1, the prosecutrix has stated that the police had taken her inside the Police Station whereas respondent no.2 and his two relatives had remained outside the Police Station but during her cross-examination, she has stated that none had accompanied respondent no.2 when he dropped her at Police Station Sadar, Sonepat. She has also deposed that the complaint Exhibit PW-1/A was got typed by her husband but later on, she stated that it had been typed by the typist on her dictation. These discrepancies cannot be said to be minor in nature and when taken together, these cast a shadow of doubt on the version of the prosecutrix.

14. To cap it all, the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 25.11.2016/26.11.2016 whereas the formal FIR has been lodged on 04.01.2017, i.e. after an inordinate delay of 40 days. Though the 7 of 9 prosecutrix, while appearing as PW-1, has tried to explain this delay by deposing that respondent no.2 had threatened her with dire consequences in case she reported the matter to anyone. Thereafter, she mustered courage and disclosed about the entire incident to her husband and other family members and then, she moved the complaint Exhibit PW-1/A before Superintendent of Police, Sonepat. It is worthwhile to mention here that PW-2 Sahid, the husband of the prosecutrix, has stated that he had moved a complaint at Police Station Kundli regarding his wife having gone missing and then, he received a phone call from Police Station Kundli and had gone there along with his brother-in-law Harun. PW-5 Sanno, the sister of the prosecutrix has also deposed that the prosecutrix had disclosed at Police Station Kundli regarding a quarrel having taken place between her and her husband and thereafter, her having left her matrimonial house. From the above discussed evidence, it is explicit that at Police Station Kundli, the husband and brother of the prosecutrix were also present and she could have disclosed about the alleged incident at that time also. Moreover, being present at the Police Station, she could not be expected to be under any pressure or threat at the hands of respondent no.2. To add to it, her sister, PW-5, has stated that after 3-4 days of the incident, she again inquired from the prosecutrix and then, she disclosed to her (PW-5) about the entire alleged occurrence, meaning thereby that her sister had also come to know about this occurrence just after 4-5 days and as such, the prosecutrix cannot be presumed to be under any threat at that time. These facts and circumstances speak volumes of the fact that the above said delay in lodging 8 of 9 the FIR does not stand justifiably and plausibly explained and it eats into the vitals of the entire case of the prosecution.